Legalize marijuana

[boise49ers]

I'll take your advice, no pro football for me......

Could be like Ricky Williams. Quit playing so you can smoke the idiot maker bush.

 

[WVXJ]

Maybe i jumped the gun a little. But just to put this baby to bed...............Most people, including myself, would say it's not a good idea to smoke anything. Green plants which contain excess nitrogen when burned produce nitrosamines which are known to be cancer causing agents. That having been said, you could go your whole life without smoking and still develop lung cancer. There are lots of things in the world that produce carcinogens which are not banned and which have no medical uses whatsoever. Now, no one said you have to smoke it, even though the AMA (Amer.Med.Assoc.) now puts their stamp of approval on vaporizers which only get hot enough to burn the THC off of the plant material. They recommend vaporizers for smoking pot by people with certain cancers and even AIDS patients who cannot keep an appetite after downing the cocktail of pharmaceuticals needed to keep them healthy or living. Several pharmaceutical firms now produce Marinol, the chemically synthesized version of marijuana which most patients refer to as "ineffective". So basically they are prohibiting people from medicating themselves in order to make a buck! And when the FBI is spending its time busting cancer and AIDS patients in cannabis houses in SF while terrorists fly planes into buildings, it kind of gets under the skin of more than a few people. Now, even though the AMA says it's ok to smoke for extremely sick folks, one could eat it, and avoid the whole argument of whether it's harmful to smoke or not. People make brownies, butter, etc., from the stuff and personally i've never heard anyone saying its harmful to eat. Almost all animals in nature will eat it and some song birds won't sing without hemp seed in their diets which led the U.S. to begin importing sterilized seeds for use in bird feed. But of course, seeds don't get people high. There is an overwhelming amount of research being done on the actual medical uses of pot which promote its use for everything from glaucoma, asthma, loss of appetite, chronic wasting, arthritis, etc., but almost none of this research is coming out of the U.S. which refuses to fund research on the subject (except for the early studies which have since been debunked). I'm not trying to jump on ya fellas, just trying to fight the good fight. Deep breath, hold, exhale.

 

[WVXJ]

Idiot maker bush? George Washington smoked it, grew it, loved it, and he's no idiot. All i'm saying is, if I can have a cigarette and beer after work, why shouldn't you be able to spark a joint? It's obviously prejudiced and wrong.

 

[Bent]

Idiot maker bush? George Washington smoked it, grew it, loved it, and he's no idiot.

Don't forget snuff.

 

[Zebaru]

I never said it was harmless either......................

True...

Though that appeared to be the intent of the argument. Harmless was the word I chose to paraphrase. It seemed appropriate given the nature of the original argument.

All i'm saying is, if I can have a cigarette and beer after work, why shouldn't you be able to spark a joint? It's obviously prejudiced and wrong.

As for being able to smoke and drink legally, could one not argue that those should be illegal, since they are 'worse' than pot - and it is illegal... All else aside, this argument has just as much merit, but is rarely made...

Travis

 

[WVXJ]

It's not an argument made by people who value their freedoms. There is a small matter of inalienable rights which include life, liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. If smoking doesn't make you happy, then don't do it. When one then tells others they cannot do it, simply because they don't like it, it infringes upon the rights of others. You could kill yourself or others in your xj, but wouldn't you feel horrible if that argument was extended to prohibit xj's, or driving in general. Plus we've all seen how well alcohol prohibition worked and unless we want to live in a police or "junta" state like Stalinist Russia, it probably won't work in the future. There must be some autonomy involved in the decisions made in ones own life, if not, then how "free" are we?

 

[WVXJ]

One cannot legislate good decision making, which is part of the struggle of a "free" society.

 

[8Mud]

One cannot legislate good decision making, which is part of the struggle of a "free" society.

Oh how the sound of wishfull thinking, breezing through the void of therotic reasoning, makes a pleasant whining sound, out of a mouth full of rhetoric. (tongue in cheek).
My psycho cousin Boby would love you. Joint in his mouth, probably laced with PCP. Driving his "good old boy" Dodge over your baby carriage. Then backing up to finish off the witnesses. On his way to meet his buddies to burglurize a Pharmacy. He might even roll you over, to get a little of the nasty, while you were still warm.
How can people be so nieve, as to expect other people, to be even marginaly reasonable (most people are inherently selfish). Consequence is the only reason, that keeps *many* people in check. And that doesn't seem to be working worth a darn.
Hey I've got an idea, lets let them self medicate. That will make things better. We'll legally allow more people to fog there judgement, that will help out enormously.
In patches and enclaves, people have managed to achieve some kind of status quo. Fairly reasonable people, trying to live fairly reasonable lives. Often living next to other patches and enclaves, that are largely out of control.
Can you truthfully predict the outcome, of screwing with the staus quo? Incrimental adjustments, would probably be the prudent recourse and then the results may take decades to observe.
You have lot of confidence in your fellow man, using good judgement and making reasonable decissions. Babies scream when they don't get fed and are surely not gentle in feeding themselves when the teeth start coming in. Many people never spit out the tit. About 6% of the population, bites on purpose.
The probable outcome (of legalizing marajuana) is that the dependant will become more dependant and the (unincarcerated) sociopaths, will get a little more out of control, with a whole new batch of victims, that get careless.

 

[Sarge]

The probable outcome (of legalizing marajuana) is that the dependant will become more dependant and the (unincarcerated) sociopaths, will get a little more out of control, with a whole new batch of victims, that get careless.

The "problem child" you outlined doesn't care if it's legal or not. The subject was also straight weed not laced weed. Weed in and of itself has never been linked to any such crimes. In a straight comparision between alcohol and weed weed comes out better. Altho I'm sure there have been crimes committed while a person was stoned. Most likely that person was going to do such no matter what.

If someone is of a dependant type personality it's not going to matter what "drug" they choose. Sociopaths are a danger whether they use any drug. I seem to recall a study that claimed most sociopaths disdain the use of drugs anyway as it doesn't permit them the feeling of being in control. Can't find the link anymore and am going by memory so that could be wrong.

Sarge

 

[8Mud]

I was little over the top. But from my experiences and observations, starting in about the mid 60's, when the Rolling Stones were young. Legilizing Marajuana would be a mistake. Incremental steps towards legalization, over a period of time, may or may not work out.
There is probably a portion of society, that it would hardly affect. On a personal level, they don't want any and aren't interested. Some others who aren't dependant prone personalities.
Other portions of scoiety, that it may affect (possibly profoundly) in a negative way. I really can't see any positive outcome.
You can't label sociopaths as an absolute. When I was in school, I was taught 15% have the tendancy and 3% are incurable. Not to mention the Psycho's and the people on the other end of the scale who are depressive. If you skew the borders (percentage wise), the numbers get really large in a hurry, when say 200 million people, will be affected. Either directly or indirectly.
At the very least, it would affect the stauts quo, likely much more profoundly than say Roe vs Wade.
To make a profound and probably irrelavant statement. Liberal minded people will invariably keep chipping away at the fabric of society, until it weakens so much the fabric tears and everybodies ass will be hanging in the wind.